Julianne Wright

The applicants sought consent to sever their property into three separate parcels to construct two new detached dwellings while retaining the existing dwelling.

They also requested a minor variance for a reduced lot area on one of the proposed parcels.

The Committee of Adjustment found that the consent application satisfied the criteria under section 51(24) of the Planning Act and that the minor variance met the four-part test under section 45(1).

The applications were granted subject to conditions.

The applicant sought consent to sever a property into two parcels to construct two detached dwellings, along with minor variances for reduced lot width, lot area, and corner side yard setback.

The City's Planning Report recommended deleting a variance for increased lot coverage, which the applicant agreed to.

The Committee of Adjustment found that the consent application satisfied the criteria under section 51(24) of the Planning Act and that the amended minor variances met the four-part test under section 45(1).

The applications were granted subject to conditions, including tree protection and stormwater management.

The applicant applied to the Committee of Adjustment for minor variances to permit a reduced lot area and lot width for the construction of a semi-detached dwelling.

Several residents raised concerns regarding the potential for the dwellings to become rooming houses, increased traffic, and loss of sunlight.

The Committee found that the requested variances met the four-part test under subsection 45(1) of the Planning Act, noting that the proposal fits well in the area and respects the character of the neighbourhood.

The applications were granted subject to a condition requiring a grading and drainage plan.

The applicant sought consent to sever land, adjust lot lines, and establish easements to create a new lot for future institutional development, along with minor variances for lot frontage and width.

The Committee of Adjustment found that the proposal was consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement, had regard for matters of provincial interest, and met the criteria under section 51(24) of the Planning Act.

The Committee also found that the requested variances met the four-part test under section 45(1) of the Planning Act.

The consent and minor variance applications were granted, subject to conditions.

The applicants applied to the Committee of Adjustment for consent to sever their property into two separate parcels to create one new lot for future residential development, while retaining the existing dwelling.

The Committee considered the criteria under section 51(24) of the Planning Act and found that a plan of subdivision was not necessary for the proper and orderly development of the municipality.

The applications were granted subject to conditions.

The applicants applied to the Ottawa Committee of Adjustment for minor variances to permit the construction of a semi-detached dwelling.

The requested variances involved reduced lot width and lot area for both halves of the proposed dwelling.

Neighbours raised concerns about the potential for the dwellings to be used as rooming houses.

The Committee found that the requested variances met the four-part test under subsection 45(1) of the Planning Act, noting that the proposal fits well in the area and represents orderly development compatible with the surrounding neighbourhood.

The applications were granted subject to a condition requiring a grading and drainage plan.

The applicants sought consent to sever a residential property into two parcels to construct two detached dwellings, along with minor variances for reduced lot width, garage setbacks, and porch projections.

The Committee of Adjustment found that the consent applications satisfied the criteria under section 51(24) of the Planning Act and that the minor variances met the four-part test under section 45(1).

The applications were granted subject to conditions.

The applicant sought a minor variance under section 45 of the Planning Act to permit 6 queuing spaces before/at the order board and a total of 9 queuing spaces for a proposed take-out restaurant with a drive-through, whereas the Zoning By-law required 7 and 11 spaces respectively.

The Committee of Adjustment found that the requested variance met the four-part statutory test, noting that the proposal fit well in the area, respected the character of the neighbourhood, and would not create any unacceptable adverse impact on abutting properties.

The application was granted.

The applicants sought consent under section 53 of the Planning Act to sever their property into two separate parcels to create one new lot for future residential development, while retaining the existing dwelling.

The Committee of Adjustment found that the proposal was consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement, had regard for matters of provincial interest, and satisfied the criteria under subsection 51(24) of the Planning Act.

The application was granted subject to conditions, including requirements for stormwater management, noise control, and a road widening conveyance.

The applicants applied to the Committee of Adjustment for a minor variance to permit a reduced corner side yard setback of 2.54 metres for a garage addition, whereas the Zoning By-law requires 4.5 metres.

The Committee applied the four-part test under subsection 45(1) of the Planning Act.

Finding that the proposal fits well in the area, respects the character of the neighbourhood, and will not create any unacceptable adverse impact on abutting properties, the Committee concluded the variance was minor, desirable, and maintained the general intent of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law.

The application was granted.

The applicants sought minor variances to permit a reduced rear yard setback and rear yard area to construct an addition and deck at the rear of their detached dwelling to accommodate an accessibility elevator.

The Committee of Adjustment found that the requested variances met the four-part test under subsection 45(1) of the Planning Act, noting no concerns from City Planning and no compelling evidence of adverse impacts on neighbouring properties.

The application was granted.

The applicant sought consent under section 53 of the Planning Act for a lot line adjustment to convey a portion of their property to an abutting property owner.

The Committee of Adjustment found that the proposal was consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement, had regard for matters of provincial interest, and satisfied the criteria under subsection 51(24) of the Planning Act.

The unopposed application was granted subject to conditions.

The applicants applied for consent to sever land for a lot line adjustment and to establish reciprocal easements for access and servicing.

They also sought a minor variance to permit a reduced interior side yard setback.

The Committee of Adjustment found that the consent application satisfied the criteria under section 51(24) of the Planning Act and that the minor variance met the four-part test under section 45(1).

The applications were granted subject to conditions.

The applicant sought consent to sever a residential property into two lots to construct a new detached dwelling while retaining the existing dwelling.

The applicant also requested minor variances for reduced front and rear yard setbacks, reduced lot width, and garage entrance location.

The Committee of Adjustment found that the consent application satisfied the criteria under section 51(24) of the Planning Act and that the minor variances met the four-part test under section 45(1).

The applications were granted subject to conditions, with one member dissenting on the minor variances.

The applicant sought minor variances to permit rear yard parking for a newly constructed three-storey semi-detached dwelling, contrary to the zoning by-law which restricts rear yard parking to legally provided garages.

The Committee of Adjustment refused the applications, finding that the proposal did not meet the four-part test under s. 45(1) of the Planning Act.

Specifically, the variances were not desirable for the appropriate development of the land, did not maintain the general intent and purpose of the zoning by-law, and were not minor due to unacceptable adverse impacts on neighbours and the streetscape.

The applicant sought consent under section 53 of the Planning Act for a lot line adjustment to convey a 14-square-metre landlocked portion of its property to an abutting property owner.

The application was unopposed and supported by city planning staff.

The Committee of Adjustment granted the application, finding that a plan of subdivision was not necessary and that the proposal was consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement and met the criteria under subsection 51(24) of the Planning Act.

The applicant sought consent under section 53 of the Planning Act to sever a property into two separate parcels for future development and to establish associated easements and rights of way.

The Committee of Adjustment considered the criteria under subsection 51(24) of the Planning Act and the Provincial Planning Statement, 2024.

Finding that a plan of subdivision was not necessary and that the proposal was consistent with provincial interests and good planning, the Committee granted the applications subject to conditions.

The applicant sought consent under section 53 of the Planning Act for a lot line adjustment to convey a 462.3 square metre portion of its property at 600 March Road to the abutting property owner at 570 March Road.

The application was unopposed and supported by the City's Planning Report.

The Committee of Adjustment granted the application, finding it consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement, 2024, and satisfied the criteria under subsection 51(24) of the Planning Act.

The applicant sought consent to sever its property into three separate parcels and establish easements, as well as a minor variance to permit an increased building height of 31 metres for a proposed nine-storey mixed-use building.

The Committee of Adjustment found that the consent applications satisfied the criteria under section 51(24) of the Planning Act and that the minor variance met the four-part test under section 45(1).

The applications were granted subject to conditions.

The applicants sought a minor variance under section 45 of the Planning Act to permit a deck projection of 3.66 metres into the rear yard, exceeding the maximum permitted 2 metres.

The application was unopposed and supported by the City's Planning Report.

The Committee of Adjustment found that the requested variance met the four-part test under the Planning Act, as it was minor, desirable for the appropriate development of the land, and maintained the general intent and purpose of both the Official Plan and the Zoning By-law.

The application was granted.